james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Local vs Remote delivery failures
Date Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:50:41 GMT
worthwhile, yes.

Although the mailet API has bounce() in the mailet context I'm pretty sure
that creating a bounce processor which would allow people to configure
bounces would be worthwhile. I think you'd have to alter all the bounce()
methods to send their mail to the bounce processor though.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2002 15:46
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: RE: Local vs Remote delivery failures
>
>
> > > Why isn't the handling consistent?
> > probably because this is an Open Source project, and any number of
> different
> > people have any number of different ideas.
>
> That was my first thought, but checking the code and CVS first,
> it appeared
> to come from the same origin.  So I thought that there might be
> some deeper
> reason for why it was handled two different ways; a reason I had missed.
>
> Similarly with my question about instrumenting LocalDelivery and
> RemoteDelivery to accept a processor name for failure notification.  I
> wasn't making the assumption that it hadn't been considered in the past.
> Instead I was asking.
>
> Should I take your responses to mean that you don't know of any
> reasons for
> the difference, and that you believe it might be worthwhile (post-2.1?) to
> make such a change?
>
> 	--- Noel
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message